You're setting up these strawman arguments just to knock them down. I never said that the decision would strike down the laws. I said the decision would open the door for litigation, the result of which would strike down the existing laws.
You continue to be wrong. Legislation, not litigation, could have voided laws allowing nude dancing. As for the strawman, here is the exchange:
Had USSC given a narrow definition and said nude dancing is not protected speech, no laws would have been struck down.
Baloney! There were laws that defined and allowed nude dancing. Citizens filed suit to stop the practice, saying that nothing in the Constitution allows nude dancing. If the USSC said that nude dancing wasn't protected speech, the laws would have been struck down.
Your reasoning is false. If a State allowed nude dancing, a ruling by USSC stating it is not protected by the First Amendment would not be overturned by litigation. It could be overturned by legislation.
I said in my post #57 that IF the second amendment were incorporated (ie., applied to the states) the word "arms" could be interpreted by the USSC, some time in the future, as to NOT include handguns.
Does that ruling change anything? Any state laws? No, it doesn't.
Applause!
But, that ruling now allows the gun grabbers to go after state constitutions that protect "arms", and push for laws banning hadguns since they're not protected by the second amendment. The USSC says so, and that applies to all states laws.
State and local governments are getting away with gun bans now. The only thing stopping them are voters, not the USSC.
Can they do this now? Sure, but it would be up to each state court, possibly a federal appeals court, to determine the definition of "arms" in their state constitution. Now, maybe the gun grabbers will get lucky in a city like Wilmette, Illinois or Morton Grove, Illinois, or Chicago and get handguns banned in those cities. But that ruling has absolutely no effect or influence on other states.
You are continuing to overlook the fact that Federal Courts are not protecting the RKBA now. How would a ruling saying the Second Amendment does not protect the RKBA change the status quo?
If a State allowed nude dancing, a ruling by USSC stating it is not protected by the First Amendment would not [allow a nude dancing law to] be overturned by litigation. It could be overturned by legislation.